Skip to Main Content

Henry W. Longley


F   610.667.7056

Henry W. Longley, an associate of the Firm, practices in the area of securities litigation.

Henry earned his law degree from Temple University Beasley School of Law, where he was Note/Comment Editor of the Temple International & Comparative Law Journal. He was also a member of the Jessup International Law Moot Court Team and the Rubin Public Interest Law Honor Society, and received Temple's Certificate in Trial Advocacy and Litigation. He earned his undergraduate degree from William & Mary.


  • Federal Bar Association

Community Involvement

  • Minds Matter of Philadelphia

Ongoing Cases

  • CASE CAPTION Marder v. Campbell Soup Company et al
    COURT United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
    CASE NUMBER 1:2018-cv-14385 (NLH)
    JUDGE Honorable Noel L. Hillman
    PLAINTIFF Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System
    DEFENDANTS Campbell Soup Company, , Denise Morrison, and Anthony DiSilvestro
    CLASS PERIOD August 31, 2017 through May 17, 2018

    This securities fraud class action case arises out of Defendants’ materially misleading statements and omissions regarding Campbell’s ability to deliver “profitable growth” in its fresh foods division, Campbell Fresh (“C-Fresh”), which included the Bolthouse Farms brand acquired by Campbell for $1.55 billion in 2012.

    During the Class Period, Defendants consistently provided fiscal 2018 (“FY 2018”) growth projections for C-Fresh, including touting “product innovations” in the Bolthouse beverage business that Defendants claimed would drive profitability in C-Fresh. However, adverse facts known to Defendants, but concealed from investors, showed that growth in C-Fresh was unrealistic and unattainable.

    In reality, because of a nationwide beverage recall and associated production declines, leading into FY 2018 C-Fresh lost critical shelf space when its largest supermarket chain customers, including at least Target, Walmart, Kroger, and Albertsons, excluded Bolthouse products from their “Modular Resets,” which are infrequent periodic shelf space allocations made by retailers to determine which products they will carry on store shelves until the next Modular Reset occurs, and replaced Bolthouse beverages with competitor products including Naked Juice (PepsiCo.), Odwalla Juice (Coca-Cola), Suja Juice and GT Kombucha. The exclusion of Bolthouse products from the Modular Resets foreclosed valuable shelf space at, and associated revenues from, at least Target, Walmart, Kroger, and Albertsons, and made sales growth at these customers impossible in FY 2018.

    Oklahoma Firefighters filed a 124-page amended complaint in January 2021 on behalf of a putative class of investors alleging that Campbell and its former executives, including CEO Denise Morrison and CFO Anthony DiSilvestro, violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements and concealing material facts about Campbell’s ability to deliver “profitable growth” in C-Fresh and violated Item 303 of Regulation S-K by failing to disclose known material adverse trends which increased the risk of an impairment charge in the Bolthouse beverage business. As alleged, following the revelation that Campbell was taking a $619 million non-cash impairment charge on C-Fresh, with $514 million attributable to the Beverage and Salad Dressing unit, Campbell’s stock price fell precipitously, causing significant losses and damages to the Company’s investors.

    Defendants’ motion to dismiss is fully briefed and pending before the Honorable Noel L. Hillman.

  •   CASE CAPTION          In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Derivative Litigation
      COURT   United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
      CASE NUMBER   Case No. 2:19-cv-02491
      JUDGE   Honorable Sarah D. Morrison
      PLAINTIFF   Stanley Malone and Michael Splaine
      DEFENDANTS   Current and former members of Cardinal’s board of directors

    Plaintiff seeks to hold Cardinal Health’s directors and officers responsible for its role in the opioid crisis.  Plaintiff alleges that Cardinal’s board and certain officers ignored numerous “red flags” that should have alerted them to the company’s failure to abide by opioid distribution laws. 

    The action began in July 2019, when Cardinal Health shareholders represented by Kessler Topaz served a demand upon Cardinal Health’s board to access the Company’s records related to its opioid distribution practices. After reviewing thousands of pages of confidential, board-level documents, plaintiffs commenced their derivative action on December 13, 2019. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.  After briefing and oral argument, the Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss on February 8, 2021. 

    Ohio law required plaintiff to plead that a majority of the board faced a substantial likelihood of liability that they “‘ignore[d] ‘red flags’” that Cardinal was not in compliance with laws and regulations requiring it to prevent the unlawful diversion of controlled substances.  In reaching its decision to allow the action to proceed, the court relied heavily on the board-level documents summarized in the complaint regarding the board’s reaction to mounting scrutiny by the Company’s principal regulators. Because of plaintiffs’ pre-suit investigation, the complaint described “no fewer than 53 specific instances in which the Board or one of its relevant committees met to discuss, or was otherwise notified of important information related to, compliance risks or issues in Cardinal Health’s distribution of prescription opioids.”  Even after the Company paid significant sums of money to settle multiple claims from regulators, the board members continued to sit on their hands, and essentially ignored the unlawful conduct. Crediting plaintiffs’ assertion that the board was more concerned with public relations than legal compliance, the court highlighted relatively recent board minutes that include “extensive discussion of a public relations strategy for ‘reorienting’ the narrative” without any discussion of the “track-record or effectiveness” of Cardinal Health’s internal controls.

    Since defeating the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff has been engaged in document discovery.

    Read Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint Here

    Read Opinion and Order on the Motion to Dismiss Here

  • CASE CAPTION          Sjunde AP-Fonden v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. et al.
    COURT United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
    CASE NUMBER 1:18-cv-12084-VSB
    JUDGE Honorable Vernon S. Broderick
    PLAINTIFF Sjunde AP-Fonden (“AP7”)
    DEFENDANTS The Goldman Sachs Group (“Goldman Sachs” or the “Company”), Lloyd C. Blankfein, Gary D. Cohn, and Harvey M. Schwartz
    CLASS PERIOD February 28, 2014 to December 20, 2018, inclusive

    This securities fraud class action case arises out of Goldman Sachs’ role in the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (“1MDB”) money laundering scandal, one of the largest financial frauds in recent memory.

    In 2012 and 2013, Goldman served as the underwriter for 1MDB, the Malaysia state investment fund masterminded by financier Jho Low, in connection with three state-guaranteed bond offerings that raised over $6.5 billion. Goldman netted $600 million in fees for the three bond offerings—over 100 times the customary fee for comparable deals.

    In concert with Goldman, Low and other conspirators including government officials from Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates ran an expansive bribery ring, siphoning $4.5 billion from the bond deals that Goldman peddled as investments for Malaysian state energy projects. In actuality, the deals were shell transactions used to facilitate the historic money laundering scheme. Nearly $700 million of the diverted funds ended up in the private bank account of Najib Razak, Malaysia’s now-disgraced prime minister who was convicted for abuse of power in 2020. Other funds were funneled to Low and his associates and were used to buy luxury real estate in New York and Paris, super yachts, and even help finance the 2013 film “The Wolf of Wall Street.”

    AP7 filed a 200-page complaint in October 2019 on behalf of a putative class of investors alleging that Goldman and its former executives, including former CEO Lloyd Blankfein and former President Gary Cohn, violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements about Goldman’s role in the 1MDB fraud. As alleged, when media reports began to surface about the collapse of 1MDB, Goldman denied any involvement in the criminal scheme. Simultaneously, Goldman misrepresented its risk controls and continued to falsely tout the robustness of its compliance measures. Following a series of revelations about investigations into allegations of money laundering and corruption at 1MDB, Goldman’s stock price fell precipitously, causing significant losses and damages to the Company’s investors.

    In October 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that Goldman’s Malaysia subsidiary had pled guilty to violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) which criminalizes the payment of bribes to foreign officials, and that Goldman had agreed to pay $2.9 billion pursuant to a deferred prosecution agreement. This amount includes the largest ever penalty under the FCPA.

    On June 28, 2021, The Honorable Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York sustained Plaintiffs’ complaint in a 44-page published opinion. The case is now in discovery.

  • CASE CAPTION        Franklin Mutual Series Funds v. Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd., et al.; Nordea Investment Management AB v. Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd., et al.; and State of Alaska, Department of Revenue v. Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd., et al.
    COURT United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
    CASE NUMBER 3:18-cv-01681-SRU; 3:18-cv-01721-SRU and 3:20-cv-01630-SRU
    JUDGE Honorable Stefan R. Underhill
    PLAINTIFF Franklin Templeton Investment Funds, Nordea Investment Management AB, State of Alaska Department of Revenue, and The Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation
    DEFENDANTS Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (“Teva”), Erez Vigodman, Eyal Desheh, Yaacov Altman, Sigurdur Olafsson, Kåre Schultz, and Michael McClellan
    CLASS PERIOD February 6, 2014 through May 10, 2019, inclusive

    These securities fraud opt-out actions in Connecticut federal court involve Teva’s concealment of its role in an industrywide conspiracy to fix the prices of generic drugs.  Our clients allege that Teva failed to disclose that the driving force behind its record revenues between 2013 and 2015 was its participation in the price-fixing scheme and reliance on an unsustainable strategy to systematically raise generic drug prices across its portfolio.  When Teva’s role in the price-fixing conspiracy and the true financial consequences of its pricing strategy were revealed, plaintiffs suffered substantial investment losses.  

    In addition to representing multiple U.S. and European investment funds, Kessler Topaz was appointed by U.S. District Judge Stefan R. Underhill to serve as liaison counsel to the Court on behalf of the more than twenty-five opt-out plaintiffs in this consolidated litigation.  


Henry W. Longley, Strategies for Asset Recovery from Mainland China, 33 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L. J. 1 (2018)   Read Here